Usage Score
35.1
Player Dossier
2008-2011SMU
Cole Beasley
WR • 5'9" • Little Elm, TX, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Cole Beasley reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
79.5
Consistency
71.1
Season Value
71.3
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason · SMU
08090910101111
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 7
- Program Path
- SMU
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Unknown
Scouting Read
Best season and peak-game context are pinned here so the rest of the page can stay analytical without losing the headline story.
Cole Beasley, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason · SMU. Cole Beasley reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2011 Postseason
SMU paired 1,040 primary output with 79.5 efficiency.
Supporting note
2011 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 79.5 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2011 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Unknown
Game with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Season Workbench
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2011 Postseason · SMU
Games
12
Receiving Yards / G
86.7
Efficiency
79.5
Usage
35.1
Consistency
71.1
Best Game by takeover score
Pittsburgh
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
123456789101112
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Pittsburgh: 86. Texas A&M: 56. UTEP: 99. Unknown: 171. Memphis: 50. UCF: 134. Southern Miss: 96. Tulsa: 79. Tulane: 62. Navy: 65. Houston: 84. Rice: 58
Volume vs Efficiency
Low volume / high quality
High volume / high quality
Low volume / lower quality
High volume / lower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Pittsburgh: 7 by 81.9. Texas A&M: 7 by 53.3. UTEP: 10 by 66. Unknown: 11 by 100. Memphis: 3 by 100. UCF: 10 by 89.3. Southern Miss: 7 by 91.4. Tulsa: 4 by 100. Tulane: 6 by 68.9. Navy: 8 by 54.2. Houston: 6 by 93.3. Rice: 7 by 55.2
Split Comparison
Wins81.5 · n=6 · +5.5 vs Losses
Losses76 · n=5 · -5.5 vs Wins
First Half99.3 · n=6 · +25.3 vs Second Half
Second Half74 · n=6 · -25.3 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
12 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Unknown
Best efficiency game
100 vs Tulsa
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 1/7 | @ Pittsburgh | W 28-6 | — | 7 | 86 | 12.3 | 12.30 | 0 | 19 |
| Sat 11/26 | vs Rice | W 27-24 | — | 7 | 58 | 8.3 | 8.30 | 0 | 29 |
| Sat 11/19 | @ Houston | L 7-37 | — | 6 | 84 | 14 | 14 | 0 | 27 |
| Sat 11/12 | vs NavyHigh volume | L 17-24 | — | 8 | 65 | 7.4 | 8.10 | 1 | 20 |
| Sat 11/5 | vs Tulane | W 45-24 | — | 6 | 62 | 10.3 | 10.30 | 0 | 14 |
| Sat 10/29 | @ Tulsa | L 7-38 | — | 4 | 79 | 19.8 | 19.80 | 0 | 27 |
| Sun 10/23 | @ Southern Miss | L 3-27 | — | 7 | 96 | 13.7 | 13.70 | 0 | 35 |
| Sat 10/15 | vs UCF100 receiving yards · High volume | W 38-17 | — | 10 | 134 | 13.4 | 13.40 | 1 | 36 |
| Sat 9/24 | @ Memphis | W 42-0 | — | 3 | 50 | 16.7 | 16.70 | 0 | 26 |
| Sun 9/18 | vs Unknown100 receiving yards · High volume | — | — | 11 | 171 | 15.5 | 15.50 | 0 | 38 |
| Sat 9/10 | vs UTEPHigh volume | W 28-17 | — | 10 | 99 | 9.9 | 9.90 | 0 | 24 |
| Sun 9/4 | @ Texas A&M | L 14-46 | — | 7 | 56 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 17 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
SMU
2008-2011
Opening stop
Season Progression
2008200920092010201020112011
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 Regular Season | SMU | 366 | 52.3 | 21.6 | — |
| 2009 Postseason | SMU | 493 | 67.8 | 16.4 | 127 |
| 2009 Regular Season | SMU | 493 | 67.8 | 16.4 | 0 |
| 2010 Postseason | SMU | 1,060 | 76.7 | 28.7 | 567 |
| 2010 Regular Season | SMU | 1,060 | 76.7 | 28.7 | 0 |
| 2011 Postseason | SMU | 1,040 | 79.5 | 35.1 | -20 |
| 2011 Regular Season | SMU | 1,040 | 79.5 | 35.1 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Unknown
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
171
Primary metric
171 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Marshall
94
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
94 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Rice
158
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
158 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Tulane
135
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
135 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Tulsa
94
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
94 receiving yards with a 78.3 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2011 Postseason · SMU
1,040 primary output · 79.5 efficiency · 35.1 usage
71.3
#2
2011 Regular Season · SMU
71.3
1,040 primary · 79.5 efficiency · 35.1 usage
#3
2010 Postseason · SMU
66.8
1,060 primary · 76.7 efficiency · 28.7 usage
Milestones
5
100+ receiving yards
11
8+ catch outings
2
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
2★
Class 2008 · Rating 0.7667
Little Elm · Little Elm, TX
- Committed To
- SMU
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2008
Career Facts
1
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
2,959
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 47 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.